Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Lobbying on health issues does not belong in the court system. That's the message the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent in CoMed Inc v. Sebelius.

The Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs filed a lawsuit against the Federal government to suspend the Food and Drug Administration approval of thimerosal-preserved vaccines, claiming that the vaccines pose numerous threats, including autism in children.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled this week that the numerous citations by Dayton Tire will not be classified as willful citations, as characterized by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

This decision came "grudgingly, as the court was clearly upset at the fact that OSHA's commission dragged their feet on their review -- an issue that was raised by Dayton Tire during the appeal.

McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical distributor and health care information technology company, suffered a setback in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week after decades of dairy litigation.

That's right: McKesson has spent years crying over spilled milk. But with good reason.

Sherkat Sahami Labaniat Pasteurize Pak (Pak) is a joint venture between San Francisco-based McKesson and private Iranian citizens. McKesson's had a 31 percent ownership interest in Pak at the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the families of enemy combatants who killed themselves in their Guantanamo prison cells cannot sue the U.S. government for damages.

Talal Al-Zahrani and Ali Abdullah Ahmed Al-Salami sued the United States as representatives of their deceased sons' estates, seeking money damages relating to the alleged mistreatment and eventual death of those sons while they were detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. A district court granted United States' motion for dismissal of the claims based on the merits.

Under the federal False Claims Act, a person who is not affiliated with the government can file a claim against a federal contractor, asserting fraud against the government. The law allows the filer to receive a share of recovered damages, but it's generally governed by a first-to-file limitation.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals offered clarification regarding the first-to-file requirement in November, holding that, in the case of duplicative False Claims Act complaints, the earlier-filed complaint does not have to meet the heightened fraud or mistake pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) to allege facts sufficient to prompt a government investigation, and bar later-filed complaints on the same facts.

Sara Gruen's New York Times best seller, Water for Elephants, addressed the issues of circus animal treatment and cruelty to elephants. The topic has become increasingly popular in recent years as protesters call for circus boycotts to condemn animal cruelty.

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs in a circus animal cruelty case lacked Article III standing to bring an Endangered Species Act (ESA) claim against Feld Entertainment, parent company of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

Drs. James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, the researchers who lost a challenge to government funding of embryonic stem cell research earlier this year, filed a notice of appeal this week with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The controversy at the center of the case started with President Barack Obama’s 2009 Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells, stating that the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

Summary Judgment in Claims for Negligence in Connection with Burst Pipe Affirmed

In Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Serv., Inc., No. 09-7128, third-party claims for negligence and breach of contract in connection with a burst pipe at a building managed by third-party defendant, summary judgment for third-party defendant is affirmed where 1) the alacrity with which defendant staunched the flow of water was relevant only to the measure of damages, not to liability; 2) because plaintiff did not show "good cause," the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion for an extension of time; 3) the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply brief.

Mandamus Petition to Restore Petitioner to Inspector General Office

In Walpin v. Corp. for Nat'l. & Comm. Servs., No. 10-5221, petitioner's appeal from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus directing that the Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS) be directed to restore petitioner as the CNCS Inspector General on the ground that the President did not comply with the requirement of the Inspector General Act that the President give the Congress thirty days' notice of his intent to remove an Inspector General and of the reasons therefor, the court affirmed where the district court correctly dismissed the action because petitioner did not have a "clear and indisputable right to relief" as required for mandamus.

Petition for Review of FERC Ratemaking

In Apache Valley Corp. v. FERC, No. 09-1204, a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a lease that would enable a larger, interstate pipeline (Midcontinent) to transport natural gas over a smaller, intrastate pipeline (Enogex), the court granted the petition in part where FERC did not provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. However, the court denied the petition in part where petitioner failed to raise its undue discrimination claim before FERC.